Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2013
- This is the first in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.
Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss whether science has "buried" God, making him unnecessary for explaining the world we observe around us.
This video starts with interviews with Prof Krauss and Dr Craig, in which they comment on their approach to these discussions.
The copyright for the Life, the Universe and Nothing videos is held by City Bible Forum. Prof Krauss has requested that these videos are not copied on to any device nor uploaded by anyone other than the City Bible Forum.
![SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss [HD] 02-04-12](/img/n.gif)
I don't regret having seen this debate. It was beautifully conducted by the guest and I learned immense amounts from both Dr. Krauss & Dr. Craig.
Obviously Dr. Krauss is very intelligent in terms of logic and mathematical type thinking. He wouldn't be where he is in life if that wasn't true but, when it comes to deeper level thinking and philosophy, he is almost childlike.
Childish and petulant. Childlike is more open to wonder.
What a beautiful smack-down of WLC, the moderator and religion in general. Just beautiful.
I just love watching every single comment being full of hate, just shows the deep emotions running through atheism.
91Chanito True that :)
Atheists are constantly surrounded by bullshit. Actually everyone is, but atheists are the ones who are aware of it.
Ryan E I am aware of your bullshit comment, does that make me an atheist? You just copied and pasted what a lot of atheist are saying this week.
Ryan E Well done in proving my point.
91Chanito and well done to you for proving mine.
Krauss sneezes and the crowd erupts in applause, He takes a drink of water and more applause...
😂😂😂
This is what happens when people have hatred towards another’s view. It’s basic “confirmation bias”.
Christians are not trying to rebuke science but it’s quite the opposite with science. Christians just want the evidence to be clear before we just start saying this is what it is. Evolution has little credible evidence. Dr James Tour goes over the problems with evolution.
Excellent, factual and to the point. Krauss - - superb performance 👏
Thanks for the upload!
When the man who keeps interrupting you than gets mad when u cut him off, the debate is over
Craig is awesome
I liked the bit when Craig asks Krauss why it's wrong to kill
But, its not wrong to kill. Your book even fully condones it.
It's not wrong to kill clothes moths.
Murder was a crime in cavillation long before the bible and latest bunch of gods.
@@stephenconnolly3018
Where exactly is Cavillation?
@@tedgrant2 it's east of eden?
+John Peters - Exactly! I don't understand why atheists are giving Krauss virtual pats on the back as if he accomplished anything. If his goal was simply a morale booster for his camp and to stick it to Craig, well done. If it was to "educate" people as to why the arguments of theism fail as he claims, he failed miserably. It was about as enlightening as a political debate.
It was a little more enlightening than a political debate. At least in this debate you got a clear view of what each debater believes. Political debates are totally useless. Politicians could debate for a week and not only say less than nothing, but have a hard time saying anything that's true or that they even believe for that matter.
If you want enlightening, go read The God Delusion. They were only given a few minutes to speak, he couldn't very well cram a whole semester of physics and biology into his allotted time, could he? He did a very good job at pointing out the arguments. You'll have to take the arguments and dissect them yourself to get the larger points that lie behind them.
It is fascinating to see how people react when Dr. Craig tries to explain the Canaanites question. Is it that hard for some people to understand that if you truly love something, like children, then you will hate the opposite, which is abortion. It's the most basic of examples to show that God who loves righteousness, necessarily brings justice towards the unrighteousness. If you don't understand this, you'll never begin to understand Dr. Craig's explanation.
***** "god" is as important to me as leprechauns and pixies are. but hey, for those who wish to believe - have at it. whatever gets you through the night or the day or life in general. just keep that crazy shit out of my face" you commented this in another video. Why are you watching all these other videos or even bother to reply to someone if you just want to be left alone? Lol.... Fail at trying to be impartial.
*****
Only an atheist can write 14 lines without making a single point..
I understand Craig's answer. The problem is that it presupposes that a) the cristian god exists, and b) that the account in the bible is correct.
Take these away and you get Israelites committing genocide because their leader told them that their imaginary god told them to do so. This is clearly immoral!
This is why justifying an action to fit with an incorrect world view is such an appalling thing.
All of Craig's arguments equally endorse allah as they do yahweh. There is a huge assumption based on presupposition that is logically nonsensical in order to come out with the answer he is looking for!
Enough of this ridiculous nonsense!
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Deuternonomy 21:18-21
Portabledexter
This passage looks contradictory to you, just because you don't understand morality. The Bible claims that God is the ground of all morality. Morality is not expressed in what God says to be "good" or "bad", but it is expressed in His own nature. The next step is to understand the relationship b/w the Creator and His creatures. God creates with divine purpose. It was in this purpose for men to obey their parents. This is how we were designed. So, this passage just illustrates that if a man deviates completely from God's divine purpose of living, then justice must take place.
This is unwatchable because Krauss behaves in such a vile, insulting, infantile manner, hoping that if he shouts enough and insults Craig enough that will somehow make his points more believable. And people here have the audacity to call craig the delusional idiot!
+deraquis The problem with most atheists, is the anger and which diseases them. They are infested with scorn which they do not know where to direct. It is the scorn which plagues them which has lead them to the foolishness of atheism in the first place, and it is that scorn which has lead to them to wantonly disrespect theists and the notion of God.
+Suan Miller I will openly admit that he's being a bit angry in this. I've watched dozens of his debates and such. He is usually not as such. But it's also because he's been showing the same logic for years and no one listens.
Urban Chaos 2.0 Do you think emotion has any credence when it comes to what is factually correct?
Krauss is probably upset that Craig made many podcasts full of lies about him and tried to defame him so Krauss felt some serious schooling was in order, which he clearly dolled out to Craig
Maybe Dr Krauss was focused on getting the truth out in front of people rather than allowing Craig to continue with his twisting of the truth, wrenching quote bleeding from their context and basic distortion of the truth. Craig offers no evidence to back his wild claims, I enjoyed seeing Craig being truly taken to task for this. He is intellectually dishonest not only in this debate, but in nearly every debate I have watched with him as a participant. Stop the distortion and outright lies and attempt, at least, to present some evidence Dr Craig - but therein lies
the problem, his position lacks evidence.
You can't bury something that doesn't exist.....
true
Krauss: "miss the point and repeat stuff, repeat stuff..."
Krauss: "Craig can´t change his mind. I´m a scientist who can change his mind whenever I admit that Science is all I do, the rest doesn´t matter because I say so, and you can´t make me."
It's my first time watching a Krauss debate/lecture....he's the shit! He really doesn't hold back, even given the audience he's speaking too. I'm impressed.
True!!!
Sam’s dad!!!
The idiot Krauss to rear his idiot brain...blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
Are you serious?? He's one of the worst debaters I've ever seen! Being rude, talking over an opponent and not understanding philosophy does not make a good debater.
@@Freethinkingtheist77 hes actual scientist who's forced to listen an ignorant fool who pretends to know something about science
The man who grows angry, and eager, and excited, in a debate, is the man who is so scared to be wrong. He is so anxious. Whether you choose Craig or Lawrence, Lawrence is suspiciously anxious in this video
I love how the 'moderator' attempts to discredit Krauss by taking a prefabricated stance based on a faulty personally assumed idea of a television show by that same moderator. Very unbiased..
Lawrence Krauss is a fucking GENIUS!!!
Beloved, the blameless one chose the weak to shame the wise of this world. Followers of the blameless one Jesus christ. Lovers of the will of God and God's COMMANDMENTS upon all dry GROUNDS. Upholding 2 COMMANDMENTS. My beautiful brother, it's the only way for anything nor everything that exists to exist.
Idiot and fraud is better
The idiot Krauss to rear his idiot brain...blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
You can still believe that your favorite divinity is behind any particular natural process in some mysterious way if you feel a desire to-- you just can't deny that a particular process is happening in the face of all evidence that it is.
Man can't bury God. He will simply resurrect Himself. Shalom in Jesus.
Craig's point at 1:16:43 is stellar.
He spoke a moral growth. Christianity have never promoted moral growth. burning at the stake for blasphemy or being a non believer. Is the Christian message.
It's important to see that Krauss attacks Craig, on a personal level.
Maybe because Lane is an arrogant and dishonest fool suffering from delusions.
This moderator is incredibly annoying.
Dead right! That moderator is a pompus git who wanted to inject his own views.
I hope that he does'nt get to moderate any further such debates because he makes me want to throwup everthing I have eaten. Who is the bastard anyway.
and biased.
This is good stuff.
Doctor - "Professor Krauss, I'm afraid you have only 3 days left to live"
Krausse - "oh my God!"
Hahahahaha that’s actually funny
Lol
Breaking News! We are all dying.
My initial thought is that it seems to me that if a small group excluded someone that did something that was cruel, then wouldn't eventually such behavior go away? Wouldn't we evolve to eliminate undesired behavior? Even if there is a difference with larger groups, wouldn't the smaller groups have eliminated such conduct early on? That's why I think sin - particularly the concept of original sin - explains why people still engage in such conduct.
I do not agree with any of Craig's arguments but I must recognize he is an elegant, elocuent and a formidable contendor and a perfect gentleman.
could someone PLEASE tell me what 2 talks in the very beginning they had before, what the moderator says.... it is not in the playlist because there just comes things AFTER this video. But what was BEFORE. What 2 (of 3 Series) is the moderator in the beginning refering to! PLEASE tell me i am getting confused with all this craig - lauwrence videos
Thank you to Dr. Krauss for straight out calling Craig a disingenuous liar and slapping that fake smile right off his face. The difference between science and religion is that science starts with a question, gathers data, and comes to a conclusion based on the data, and then reserves the right to change the conclusion based on new data. Religion begins with a conclusion, and then spends its entire existence trying to make the data fit its conclusion. As an aside Craig either doesn't know what atheism is or is disingenuous in his representation of it.
Whether you agree with Krauss or not on the question at hand, I think we can all agree that this moderator consistently stopped the conversation just as it was getting interesting.
lol c'mon...
With such a type of low conciousness we cannot explain
"All and Everything"
We need a higher conciousness.
Which must be created in our three bodies first.
You need higher feelings higher movements and higher thinking
centers then you will become a candidate of the first order.
Gurdjieff.
No one can disprove God, and no one can prove who created God all we know that God leave his fingerprint on the creation.... the fine tuning of the universe....
That last bit was just glorious. Craig added a comment about fine tuning and Krauss in his answer didn't respond. Then the moderator asked Krauss about the fine tuning and he gave a brilliant response.
Dr Craig never answered one question just. Quote philosophy from the past and rambled on.
Krauss is sure cranky during this debate. I think he might be looking to fill Hitchens' shoes.
+Religion LOL I got cranky jsut listening to Craig's opening presentation. Especially the part when he got off topic and talk about how Christianity is better than other religions as the soil in which the seed of Science can grow. So fucking hard to keep an open-mind when you know the speaker thinks his beliefs are infallible.
+Darcy Houston Krauss' problem is the anger and which diseases him. He is infested with scorn which he does not know where to direct. It is the scorn which plagues him which has lead him to the foolishness of atheism, and and it is that scorn which has lead to his wanton disrespect of theists and the notion of God.
+Urban Chaos 2.0 You couldn't be more wrong. Did you not read the first comment? That's the reason he's angry, you dolt.
Wouldn't you be cranky too debating someone as frustratingly dogmatic as Craig?
Debate starts at 21:28
I would say that, since the brain is the generator of all our experiences by interacting with it's environment, such phenomena can be explained by naturalistic means.
I would never dare say that these experiences aren't meaningful to us. They’re all we can care about, but these are completely different abstractions. The fact that an experience is explainable doesn't make it any less of an experience.
I skipped ahead straight to the opening talk by Krauss when it became apparent that the moderator was interjecting his own personal bias on the subject.
Moderators should not do this.
did exactly the same thing.
jj Mack That moderator was excruciating.
William Lane Craig quotes P.T. Landsberg: "To talk about the implications of science for theology at a scientific meeting seems to break a taboo"
Google Search on 20150310-0018 EDT gives 9 results, 2 of which are on Craig's website. Let me venture a guess: the world isn't as impressed as Craig tries to imply.
Look at William Lane Craig's face at 39:16 he's like, "What the fuck are you up too??????" ha ha priceless!
Jesus christ, Dr. Krauss just went Balls to the walls in exposing Dr.carig!!! WAO!!!!!!!! i couldn't believe that he dumped the entire Exxon into the well! !!!!!! Bravo Bravo!!!!
My man Krauss...go get em!
They need to make a HUGE distinction between God and religion. This could have better been called, "Has science buried Religion" because that is the target of concern. All too many times do we forget that God or the notion of God is not limited to any religion but can also go far beyond religion. Of course the christian God is limited within the scope of christianity, same for the hindu gods for hinduism, muslim god in islam, etc. but the notion of God itself can fall far beyond any religion. The best example would be the philosophy of Xenophanes and his idea of a god/gods. Thus, craig does a great job of defending a notion of god UNTIL he tries to argue for the christian context of god. Same for krauss in that when he tries to argue against God, it can be found faulty, BUT when it comes to arguing against the christian god, or any fixed god based on a religion, then his arguments have much more solidity. What we should do is redefine how we see God beyond any religious concept.
who would do the defining?
That's a good question, and I think I should rephrase that last statement to say that we need to change how we understand and see the notion of god. A good start is Xenophanes notion that we cannot ever fully understand what god(s) would be like. That because we are limited beings, any attempt to define god would be too limited as well, and would be a misrepresentation of what a true god would be like. Thus, what Xenophanes is stating that we cannot truly understand what god is as a whole, and any religion that tries to do so fails in that it creates too small a context of what god would be. This is obviously seen in many religions, where the ideas of god are mixed highly with very human traits, and that many of "god's" laws are either unethical, small minded, or irrational. This could be because it is a deluded version of what a true notion of god would be like, and a corruption of true moral codes that would stem from god. That would be just a start.
I have never been so embarrassed by the unprofessionalism or Professor Lawrence Krauss at the beginning of this debate, what kind of professor gets up and calls his opponent a liar to his face. This was a great shame to me. And have never been so proud of the professionalism of Dr. William Lane Craig.
so ....is it "professionalism" to distort the truth ? To fabricate evidence ? This is what Dr Craig does in every one of his debates. He sticks to a basic, set model whenever he debates and do so, regardless of anything his opponent says. I will give him this, he is experienced at his style of debates, which hardly constitute a real debate so, damning with faint praise here I guess, I will also say I'd rather watch a debate in which evidence was presented, there was dialogue back and forth etc .....but that said, I must say, Dr Craig got his rear end handed to him and it was quite enjoyable to watch.
I have no idea why more debates are not made on this manner that is both debators can freely speak and question each other. It's way more interesting and informative. If you don't allow debators to have some serious direct dialogue all you get are usually the same statements all over often devoid of any adress to arguments of the other side.
Krauss doesn't have a logical argument for his proposition. That's why he kept on shouting nervously during these three discussions. Dr Craig put forward his theistic proposition rationally and logically; Prof. Krauss was left completely weaponless and couldn't handle the situation at all, which was quite sad honestly.
Craig's propositions was just wishful thinking. Krauss was upset because of Craig's constant philosophical mambo-jumbo.
mcfunthomas If you think what Craig was saying was merely "mambo-jumbo" you clearly weren't listening, or are unable to understand anything which has logic and sense tied to it
***** Just for my edification, can you clarify why it is not immoral for god to wipe out an entire peoples including their children? WLC said it was but I didnt understand why. can you elaborate?
mzenji Sure "divine command theory" better know as "might makes right". God is the tough thug on the block. He hides and gets others to take risks for him. He has a book and everything.
*****
You clearly are using psuedo logic
so according to Craig, people who kill other people (children top the list) are actually doing them a favor... really.
Krauss blatantly calls out Craig for lying, and Craig offers zero response... next best thing to an admission.
Karl Schuch It seems to be universal with christians. Alistair McGrath lies, Benny Hinn lies, John Polkinghorne lies... It seems that they think that honesty is something for non-believers, not for believers.
Karl Schuch Stalin was an atheist and he said immoral things, so I have come to the conclusion that God does not exist. Great reasoning.
It would seem from this list of comments (take the above as an example) that most atheist arguments consist of insulting people of faith. Great job gang!
deraquis Huh? when did I say anything about a god existing or not?
You seem to have made that part up.
My comment was ONLY about Craig's character - his inability to tell the truth. I never offered that as an argument for or against a god.
Agreed?
deraquis
_Stalin was an atheist and he said immoral things, so I have come to the conclusion that God does not exist. Great reasoning._
Can you elaborate?
_It would seem from this list of comments (take the above as an example) that most atheist arguments consist of insulting people of faith. Great job gang!_
People of faith seem to be giving the example. After all, they are the ones who used to burn us at the stakes for not believing in their favourite fairy tales. But then, whether or not anybody is insulting anyone is rather irrelevant, is it not? There are a great many ways to insult Isaac Newton, but our lives would be very different if we did not follow his system. For a very simple reason: it works.
How well does your system work? Are you really happy when you are dashing little babies against the rocks as the Bible claims? Or are you following another One True God?
Debating requires to listen, patience and respect, that is what my logic is telling me. Multiple interruption and arrogant response shows there is no need for debate. I am sure there is a free stage somewhere.
However, I appreciate to hear both arguments, it helps a person like me to understand the thinking patters of both Science and Theology.
1:48:00 I'm glad Krauss pointed out WLC's cherry picking (and misunderstanding?) of the science of cosmogony.
Man! Krauss has taken the Hitchslap to a whole new level! lol. This is the type of debate I've been waiting for.
What debate were you watching
Professor Krauss, overall, easily won the three-part discussion. At times, it was as if Craig was Krauss's physics student, and every time Krauss asked a challenging question, Craig couldn't give a coherent answer. Of course, in the first Krauss vs Craig in 2012, Krauss wasn't on top form, and Craig's sly techniques, as usual, made it look like he'd won last year.
Krauss lied
@@les2997 yes because william craig has been known to only spit out truths. ridiculous
Lol I can tell you have poor logical comprehension skills. Kraus could have been defeated by a potato. His arguments are from emotion and hate and not logic.
There were a couple of breaks where it looked like something might have been edited out. Is this the full video of the evening or has it been "cleaned up"?
I often diagree with Krauss' approach when conducting a debate, but he deserves credit for having the guts to call William Lane Craig a liar in his face. He even provides evidence for it,
Hypocrite. He calls him a liar right after saying he is sincere in his belief.
That moderator was a self absorbed obstruction to the debate. I didn't appreciate his interjections. Few, if any, in that audience were there to hear from him.
Yeah, seems to like the sound of his own voice too much....
I'm a Christian, but I applauded Mr. Krauss at 1:22:42
How do we know that all the passages in the old testament are God inspired? How do we know that they were not written by leaders of an imperialist nation to justify their conquest of the Canaanites? My entire family is Jewish, but I'm looking at this from an objective and unbiased point of view. I want to see the research which shows that certain passages in the old testament are inspired by God, and not man.
People will accuse me of being a heretic who choses the parts of the Bible that he likes and ignores other parts. But how can you not? The bible says a lot of wise and beautiful things which coincide with the 10 commandments, but it also says a lot of stuff which contradicts the 10 commandments and what Jesus said. The parts that contradict, I suspect were written by men for political purposes.
"I want to see the research which shows that certain passages in the old testament are inspired by God, and not man."
But you could just say the same thing about the whole Bible. If the Bible is flawed when the passages aren't desirable then the Bible isn't credible at all.
If you are a christian than you have a perfectly valid reason why to believe all of the old testimate. The reason being because Jesus affirmed many times that the old testimate that the jews had at that time is the inspired word of God. Since Jesus is infallible (because he is god) and what Jesus said was accurately transmitted to us. Then we know that the Old testimate that the jews had is the word of God. And we know what the old testimate at that time had in it.
Lawrence Wins Again!
It was awesome! Krauss was fantastic! I really did not understand why no one else had been talking about this ridiculous text where WLC defends the massacre of the Canaanites. WLC trembled when he was in the pulpit. Neither their dissimulation helped this time.
In all the debates arranged by/for WLC, he always starts talking and does stupid questions that the opponent will not respond. When he returns, transforms your opponent into debtor because the stupids questions wasn't answared. This is their tactic. And after words claims the victory because this.
When the shape of the debate has changed, he was clearly lost.
WLC came to Brazil once to make a speech at one of our universities (Mackenzie). Prevented me from entering because I was not "Christian". It was ridiculous the what security guy told me, but...
Congratulations Lawrence Krauss for finally expose WLC!
Thank you for showing the true face of this liar and dishonest man.
I hope Dr Craig paid for that lesson.
Krauss is reminding me of my High School friend that just repeats himself over and over with loads of senseless emotion
+JohnBoy You mean Craig?
Craig: "Here's some arguable logic."
Krauss: "I personally dislike religion and I do like science."
1:34:48 is likely the best piece Krauss said during this debate. Great blow against pressupositionists which assume that god must be good.
I'll second that.
Lawrence Krauss, and example of hubris!
Can objective moral values and duties lead to crusades, inquisitions, genocides and jihads?
Is there something objectively wrong with crusades, inquisitions, genocides and jihads?
I see what you did there :)
Next time a commited religious zealot tells you that believing in subjective morals depending on your sociobiological orientation (and not just in attraction to a certain sex), note the things listed above. Hey, they literally thought it was god's word.
HTR Well, those religious people certainly seem to think there is something objectively RIGHT about those things.
HTR
I think a more helpful question to ask is, for a typical, rational, human who tends to have empathy and self-interest, is a world in which crusades, inquisitions. genocide are encouraged a desirable world to live in?
Even a typical rational human without empathy might still accept that a world in which those things are encouraged present enough of a danger to self-interest, that they should be discouraged at least a little because of the increased danger of being "targeted". For every sociopathic despot who enjoys the benefits of being on top, there are millions more who are subject to his amoral whims.
Thus, I would argue, that, yes, something is objectively wrong with crusades, inquisitions, and the like.
1:44:55 oh yes..it felt so good
Newton was also an alchemist, as I recall. And yet we dropped that hypothesis as soon as we developed a real understanding of chemistry.
He also threw up his hands in frustration when his equations couldn't properly handle multibody systems and, I think, account for the orbit of Mercury. The man who (co-)invented calculus resorted to "goddidt" as soon as things got tricky.
In Newton's time it was still a requirement to claim you believed in god and being a atheist was still a capital offence. Newton never believe there was a god just played along.
@@stephenconnolly3018cough up some evidence for that.
23:55 Look at William's face!!!!!!!!!
24:06 He is still confused
The idiot Krauss to rear his idiot brain...blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/
Craig claims that he's not making the "God if the gaps" argument, and then makes the God of the gaps argument. In order for the God concept to be an explanation for anything it must be shown to be both necessary and sufficient. Craig attempts to show that God is necessary (this is the God of the gaps / argument from ignorance move), but he never even attempts to demonstrate the sufficiency. All he has to do is explain how God/Yahweh/Jehovah created the universe, or performs a miracle, or even impregnated a virgin, and he could check "sufficient" off the list. But he never once even provided a suggestion of how this was done.
Science doesn't have to bury God... There's nothing to bury.
The is something to bury on the part of human thinking. The thinking that there is "no God", for there is God- the Grand Creator. Saying NO to a Grand Creator would only mean NO FOR LIFE. And we are all aware, all of us WANT LIFE, yet we are aware we will die. Logic will tell us, that WE NEED MERCY for our "rotten" condition. The question would be: Do we show appreciation for the MERCY of God and His Great Display of Love?
Caregiver I'm not sure if you are actually making an argument because most of what you wrote is either incoherent or baseless assertions. But to answer your question... Do you mean to say that we should appreciate the infinitely just creator that made us "rotten" and threatens us with eternal torture for acting in a way consistent with our nature, but offers us eternal bliss in violation of his just character by granting us the salvation that we can't possibly earn which we earn through blind obedience to an ancient document?
Now I know why you sound so incoherent.... Even trying to repeat Christian dogma ends up in a contradictory mess.
Jesse Cole I agree with you that Craig never establishes the necessity of God, either as a cause for anything or, as you point out, for an objective morality. My point was that to assert something is the cause of something else, it must be both necessary and sufficient. Even if you are inclined to agree with him on the necessary part (or maybe just confused), the sufficient aspect is completely missing.
I think people get hung up on the necessary argument and forget to ask the most basic question... HOW did God create the universe?
You're mistaking the necessary and sufficient condition as a God of the gaps. You are also mistaking the philosophical argument as a scientific God of the gaps argument, which it is not. You have to take things in context and in the sense in which they are intended. A premise or conclusion in a philosophical argument is not the same thing as an appropriately more detailed SCIENTIFIC analysis or conclusion in which simply positing "GOD" would not be "SUFFICIENT".
veritasfiles Actually WLC posits god as a scientific model himself.
It was INTENSE when Krauss shouted at WLC!
At 42:15 - Lawrence Krauss talks about a film about animal suffering. Does anybody know what this film is? I would like to look it up. I am interested in seeing what it has to say considering Krauss recommends it - he just didn't mention the title.
William Craig bullshit meter. I'm fucking dying! XD
Damn you have to admire Dr Krauss for calling Craig out on his bullshit like that - that was just epic.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri hes not being an ass hes calling Craig out on his bullshit every debate he vomits the same arguments that have been refuted and outdated constantly. I'm sure Krauss and others are really tired of it. He showed Craig's dishonest positions and claims. My heart is perfectly fine. Maybe you should look at it from a different perspective instead of putting yourself on a higher ground because of your belief.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri I don't think anyone is claiming to be a science god or claiming everything came from nothing. We can say we dont know and it's more honest than pretending that you do.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri was a christian for 18 years. No longer. I'm an atheist because I reject the claim god is real. I dont have enough evidence to know if god is real so until I have the evidence I will reject the claim.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri I can tell you countless recent times I've called out to jesus with an open heart setting aside all biases and worldviews so if there is a god then it's his will whatever happens.
In the beginning, they talk about two other topics. Are they available? it was somewhat confusing as to what interactions Krauss is referring to.
I would like(and prefer to be) to be the backward guy with the tranquility and calmness of Craig
than the "rational-scientific" but histerical and frenzy attitude of Krauss....
God bless you in the Powerful Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Peace my friend peace.
Like the "tranquility" of the backward guys like those of the Inquisition?
Or do you prefer the "tranquility" of YHWH himself?:
Exodus 15:3 - "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Jeremiah 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
Oscar Rivera The name has only the power you imagine it has.
Hijames price
You dont know absolutely nothing what im talking about!
God bless you in the Poweful Name of The Lord Jesus Christ.
Wow, how many times is Krauss going to interrupt Craig??? I can't believe Krauss brought a buzzer with him and used it while Craig was talking. It's like he's an angry little kid who's having a temper tantrum b/c his mommy didn't buy him that toy in the store.
It's a bullshit buzzer and given the bullshit from Craig I'm surprised he didn't use it more.
Krauss was hitting the buzzer that the entire thinking world wanted to hit.
What is funny is that some people embrace Krauss and say that he acted civilized.
*****
I say that he acted like an intelligent person in the presence of two idiots who seemed to think their postulation and guesswork is equal to his intellect. Of course he is frustrated - have you ever tried arguing with a five year old?
iesukirisuto32
I agree that Craig's assertions of stuff is not the same as proof.
Listening to people who claim that Everything originated from Nothing with a straight face must be a serious challenge for William Lane Craig.
yes
Well, one does require some proximity to moderate properly.
Thank you L. Krauss!! For calling out the OH SO Slimy character that is W.L. Craig. He has always disgusted me with his lies and immoral views
“Immoral views” if you don’t believe in God, how could something be immoral? Lol
I literally just saw a small short part of this debate where Krauss was going on a tantrum because he rejects what’s science actually says which is what Will was trying to point out. Of how he contradicted himself.
TwentyEighthParallel then how come Krauss didn’t care about lying? Or lack of respect? Where’s the rational thinking in that?
@@nathenram4891 you got the names wrong
Craig is willfully ignorant about his claim that The Big Bang validates Christianity and invalidates Eastern religion. The Big Bang only explains how our local universe had a beginning, not the cosmos. But granting there is no multiverse, then there was no time before the Big Bang. I would love Craig to please explain how any mind (aka his God) could have intention, or desire to do anything like create the world without time.
The fine tuning argument is a logical fallacy because if you say God fine tuned the parameters of the universe then that implies that God was given the parameters by someone else and then he fine tuned them for our lives. What I just stated has to be the case because why would God have to fine tune the parameters if he was the one that created them.
By our standard of course,
William Lane Craig has a lot more patience and grace than I do. Krauss is so obnoxious and full of himself. How are you supposed to have a discussion when one person is constantly butting in.
My question is how is Krauss supposed to have a discussion when Craig openly admits he won't change his mind and won't stay on topic?
ShunTachibana
When does he admit he won't change his mind? On the contrary I think it is Krauss who doesn't stay on topic. Craig gives a very structured argument whereas Krauss often appears to be ranting off topic and irrelevant points.
*****
In my opinion he exhibits many egotistical traits regardless of whether I agree with him.
Why are you so sick of it? If that's what people believe, it's what they believe. We're all different and we're all entitled to draw our own conclusions. If there is no God, why does it matter to you what anyone else thinks? If your existence is limited to your time on earth, why waste it being pissed off at a worldview that will always be held by many people.
ShunTachibana
Thank you - bottom line religion fosters evil.
ShunTachibana You didn't answer my first question. Who is protesting the development of science? I don't agree that children should be "indoctrinated" by their parents whether they are religious or not. Kids usually follow along with what their parent believe and when they get old enough to form their own opinions and make informed decisions, they do. It's the same no matter what the worldview.
You honestly think the world would be a better place without the Christian church and all the organizations associated with it? ie. The Salvation Army, World Vision etc With respect, that's a pretty weak argument to make.
Good debate. The more back and forth allowed in a debate, the better. I also liked the fact that this was done in front of an audience whose biases seemed to be evenly divided.
I've watched Dr. Craig's debates with Harris, Hitchens and others, but I think he's finally met his match in Lawrence Krauss. That's not to say that Dr. Craig was the winner in any of those other debates, but moreso to endorse Prof. Krauss as a guy that is equipped and willing to hold his feet to the fire and call him out on his bullshit.
Dr. Craig's debate methods have always been his hallmark, but those tactics don't seem nearly as effective when faced with actual scientific acuity, packaged in a guy with the fire and brimstone (pun intended) to unload it.
I can't wait to see parts 2 & 3.
I am really uncomfortable with calling a winner or looser in a debate. It's the arguments that should count and the especially the examination of the arguments. One can give a very poor presentation of very good argument and vice versa... that is why if one values critical thinking it is the argument that should count not the one with most eloquent words or most intricate words.
Also I hate moderators with a bias or unopen debates where the participants in a discussion can't actually directly challenge each other.
Krauss absolutely slams Craig multiple times! Amazing show Krauss!!
krauss got slammed, what are you on about?
Krauss says "He says that God is the only cause of the Universe w/o any justification." Apparently, K doesn´t get the fact that science is actually philosophy, nor does he get things like Craig´s Kalam Cosmological Argument. No "Higg´s field" and Newton´s apple and Krauss is like a blind man with an elephant.
This debate taught me one thing: when you presume a god without any evidence you can make up any old crap As soon as you start to fall into the trap of arguing as if the presumption is true you are on shifting sands. You have to be resolute in saying the notion of god is without evidence and therefore there is no good reason to believe it, period. Lets get on with investigating the world as it really is.
Atheists with they're emotional problems should start just siting and think in a quite place and a jazz playing and feel the stars in motion but since it is an ignorant road they've took and stick with it they shall remain ignorant!
their*
Dan Cosme thanks to you!
T*
ville477 "the argument from jazz" thats a great line of reasoning you took.
WOW! Lawrence Kicked Craig's ASS!
in your wet dreams
Soundmman with screaming and acting like a child?Talking all the time the first thing that he can come up with?
Yep~
We have buried thousands of them. There’s only one left to go.
Science rules all. This fact will always remain.
William Lane Craig, a philosopher/theologian, boasting about a paper published in "Natural Theology" that he co-authored, as if he knows a damn thing about physics.....lol
He doesn't claim to know anything about it, just quotes people who do. I am so disappointed with the incessant straw man attacks Atheists post in the comments sections of debates like this. So much aggression against a God they don't even believe in. Methinks they doth protest too much.
Dark Day Ministries He very explicitly referred to a paper (published in a religious journal I might add) that he co-authored. I don't think it's exactly a straw man to not view a philosopher/theologian as a reputable source of legitimate information on Physics. It's just a recognition that he's outside of his domain of expertise (If you can call religion a domain of expertise; talk about a wasted education).
This is a philosophical question. This is entirely within his area of expertise. That is why the Atheists cannot construct a logical argument in favour of their view. They are blind to their presuppositions.
Physics =/ Philosophy. If you think that somebody with a degree in Philosophy is in the position to publish scientific papers on Physics (although the journal was a religious one, so right off the bat it has almost no credibility, but never mind that for the sake of argument), then you obviously know very little about science. Just like William Lane Craig.
The discussion here and typical to Craig's debates is not based on physics. The Cosmological argument he raises, among others, is primarily philosophical but bases some premises on principles of physics, for which he quotes Physicists. Trying to make out that he pretends he is a Physicist is just intellectually dishonest; it is desperate character assassination and is not at all compelling.
Wow, Craig was shaking like a leaf after that Krauss' opening. Craig got wrecked right out of the gate.
That last point by Krauss, about the fine-tuning, is the rebuttal I use and I've been disappointed in the past when others have not employed it. It's completely valid. How does Craig, or anyone, know that there would be no life or Universe under other circumstances?
The fine-tuning argument takes the subset of possible Universes which have similar laws to ours, and shows that the different constants and quantities would render even *basic chemistry* impossible. This is well known to people like Martin Rees, Roger Penrose, John Barrow, etc. It's not an argument for design in itself; it's just an observation about the extraordinary fine-tuning.
But what is there to say that our basic chemistry needs to apply to other universes? There could be billions of other universe with unfathomably complex and varied traits. Things we could never dream of. Fine-tuning implies a tuner. "Tune" is a verb. No verb without a subject.
Devin Johnson
1) You're appealing to mystery. And arguing from ignorance. That's supposed to be what the religious folks do! LOL. Seriously, though, we have literally zero empirical evidence that there are other Universes, and to just punt to their "unfathomability" is basically "multiverse of the gaps" reasoning.
2) "Fine-tuning" has been used by some of the very best cosmologists and astrophysicists (Hawking, Rees, etc) and has NEVER been meant to imply a "tuner"; at least, not a personal one. They all think that *something* must account for the incomprehensibly unlikely coincidence of all these constants and quantities being life-permitting, but none of them are theists. They are looking for some explanation.
Mentat1231
1) I was only suggesting multiple universes as a more likely alternative to an intelligent designer. I understand that the evidence doesn't currently suggest...anything, really. There are no leads in the search a pre-universe reality. I wasn't trying to appeal to mystery.
2) I still personally feel that "fine-tuning" is a misnomer. In my view, it implies that our environment was in some way tailored to us. It's the other way around. But I understand that they aren't trying to imply that when they use the term. As long as they're careful about confusing Creationists.
Devin Johnson
1) Why is a multiverse a "more likely alternative" than an intelligent designer? At least with the designer we are only postulating *one* entity, rather than many (possibly an infinite number of) entities.
2) I see where you're coming from. Yeah, I guess it could be a bit confusing (or maybe a little too encouraging to creationists and design advocates). Nevertheless, whatever you choose to *call* the "fine-tuning", it is a remarkable, incomprehensible coincidence that these factors happened to fall into the extraordinarily narrow ranges that permit basic chemistry.
Its not a matter of being concerned. Group behaviour is the most effective way to keep a species around. Field research and computer models show that a species that works together will survive longer as a whole and as individuals.
People complaining about Lawrence's attitude: Can you blame him?
I personally can make points about why I don't believe in religion and accurate reasons why so; but when someone comes in my face trying to prove me wrong when I explain sciences and etc that they don't understand, I understand why he can lose his temper. Professional or not he's passionate about his beliefs.
It doesnt matter...do u see wlc reacting like that?? No....but most atheists do act like that and dont try to justify it
Science is also a worldview as well as a method, believe it or not. A dangerous one as it attempts to de-legitimate all other worldviews. This reality is embodies in Krauss' childlike behavior. And yes, one can blame him for that. One need not be am atheist or theist to see that his knowledge, however extensive, has done nothing to enrich his character. The man behaved pathetically.
You can always distinguish an atheist quite easily on CZcams; rudeness, a strange lingering anger, the pride of self proclaimed inteligence, indirect insults and offences, and very efficient at building strawmans of arguements easy for them to bring down.
Antonio Perez I don't necessarily think the 'strange lingering anger' applies to all atheists. Mind you, I could see why an atheist would feel like that...for hundreds of years, proclaiming yourself as someone who didn't believe in Allah, Wotan, Apollo, Mithras, Yahweh etc would almost certainly lead one to an early grave....I guess that would be slightly annoying
Dan G You may actually be right, Dan. Unfortunately for me I havent come across an atheist like that, I merely said what I said out of my personal experience with atheists; so angry with a God that, according to them, doesnt exist. Now I would understand the hostility if was some sort of islamic or catholic belief, were the general scope of the issue was either you convert to their God or you die. But that isnt proper Christian belief, Conversion is in act of faith, and an act of faith is voluntary. Those sort of "convert or die beliefs" annoy me as well, Christians were murdered, by both jews, romans, etc, over the last 2000 years.
I completely agree with your assessment of the atheistic attitude on CZcams. I have tried several times to speak reasonably and exchange ideas with some who proclaim atheistic views and my every attempt leads to an immediate response of judgement from those who claim to live by superior tolerance.
+Perro Maldito y did u change the subject...point is y do the atheists always come out as arrogant and intolerant individuals
I wasnt talking about you...i was talking in general terms like most atheist debaters/scientists
Um...just a quick thought. I wonder what it would have been like, if the moderator had been an atheist, and interrupted Craig as much as this moderator interrupted Krauss. I'm sure every christian out there would say that it was annoying at best, unfair and biased at worst. Just saying.
To the sound guy.. Why would you use an audio gate with such harsh settings on dialogue? All I can hear is chop, chop, chop. It is so distracting.
Apology accepted. : )
It is what we do know that shows us we have a Maker of matter not made of matter because matter is not able to make itself programmable or program itself, inside of us, as we see, without being directed.
You have no other choice of a physical maker than to give all the credit to objects because matter is the only physical thing there is for you to give all the credit to.
Wow, I was a fan of Lawrence before, although being a bit annoyed by his verbal habits at the beginning, but that debate was amazing!
I have seen many good debates where I felt the secular stance "won" and seen comments talking about how one Apparently "destroyed" the other, but now for the first time have I truly seen that in a debate. And to think that some christians are actually so delusional as to believe their side "won" in this one, or rather, came close to standing up to the relentless, yet rational, scrutiny from Lawrence.
And you see the moderator notice the validity of his arguments and becoming more lenient in his seemingly biased accusations(I'll give you that the moderator might have been "playing the devils advocate", pun intended, all along)
It is amazing how emotionally childish Krauss is.
It's a mazing how you don't listen to and evaluate his arguments, but rather tut at outer appearances.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri You seem bright.
@Msg of Yitzhak Kaduri Thank you for proving my point.
Craus
Kraussteach science the truth origen of are life without bulllies religios is lucrative lies no prove and tax free support but fools that follows them no cuestions ask or you go to hell which it was also another lie invented so they can blackmail you to also belive don't be a Morant fight for the truth and tell others learn science boarn free
"religion ain't going away!" - Current events says differently.
"Rip the comfort from the hands of believers?I" - Considering their comfort includes demanding that I live in a particular way that they are happy with, yes. Rip away!
"How I approach it is..." - And not doing very well at it, eh?
The end of religion is close at hand. I give it no more than 3 generations before it is left in the violent past from which it sprang... IF we continue pounding on it.
Is this labeled correctly? This is labeled as the *1st* part, but in the introduction, they are clearly talking about the 1st two parts in past tense. Is this the 1st part or the 3rd?